Absolutely, it’s about odds. I believe it’s incredibly unlikely there is a god, as I believe it’s just as unlikely there is a teapot orbiting Mars. I don’t feel compelled to disprove either of those. If someone with an extraordinary claim feels like providing definitive evidence of their particular god being even likely I’m willing to look at it and change my view if necessary.
Doesn’t the view you’re commenting on suggest more, I dunno, deism than atheism?
Well, I guess it does. However, I am confused about a “creator” that is not a “god.” Help me out.
I don’t hate atheists for what they believe, but their tendency towards thread shitting is a little offputting.
Regards,
Shodan
What the heck are you talking about? There’s all kinds of believers on the board.
<-----strong theism----------------------strong belief for-----------------------weak belief for-----------------| no belief either way; agnosticism |--------------------weak belief against--------------------strong belief against--------------------strong atheism----->
Either your position can be objectively proven, or it cannot. All of our positions (except for the pure agnostic) have elements that are both objective and subjective.
Both the atheist the theist have the known objective scientific “truths” before us. From the human genome to the cosmos, we have the same evidence to interpret. But the fact is, once we cross over from objective fact, we are espousing subjective belief. It doesn’t matter how compelling the evidence is to you (and it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that both the atheist and theist most often rely on the same data) you are doing nothing more than sharing your inferences from the objective evidence; you are witnessing for your belief.
The theist has previewed the data and concluded that there is a God. The stronger that conviction------IOW, the greater the moral certainty-----the more blurred the lines between objectivity and subjectivity become;* to the point that they all look objective.* (see: kanicbird)
The atheist is on the opposite side of the same row boat. It is not a minor distinction to go from “there is not enough evidence for me to believe in God”, to “there is no god.” The moment you go from no position to a position of belief for/against the existence God/god, you are leaving objectivity towards subjectivity. And to the extent you wish to proclaim your atheism you are witnessing for your subjective beliefs.
I think it’s disconcerting to the point of nausea for the SDMB atheists to admit the kinship that atheism and theism share. The bedrock of both is a set of beliefs.
So, instead of embracing their faith, we get an Abbott & Costello “who’s on first?” routine.
Uh, no.
Between atheism and theism is agnosticism. It would appear that that some atheists would like us to believe “if it’s not theism, it’s atheism” because it’s convenient to hide behind agnosticism when proof is asked of the atheist.
To the extent that this might be true it simply suggests that the “vast majority” of atheists are weak atheists. (and I trust you understand I’m not using “weak” in a pejorative sense)
Is it comfortable up on that fence? Theists and atheists do not share the same set of beliefs, no matter how much you misrepresent their arguments. It is definitely not a large jump at all to go from “There is no evidence for God” to “There is no God”, anymore then it is a large jump to say “There is no evidence for the Loch Ness Monster” to “There is no Loch Ness Monster.” Until evidence comes in supporting an event, assuming the negative, especially when such event contradicts other existing evidence, is usually the right thing to do.
ETA
I would simply add that a strong set of beliefs always imputes [perceived] objectivity into inherently subjective things. Strong faith is a high level of moral certainty.
Strangely enough, the stronger the faith of either the atheist or theist, the less likely they’re able to see it’s all made of the same stuff.
It took exactly 10 minutes for an atheist to hide behind agnosticism. Had this not been a Sunday morning it wouldn’t have taken this long.
An informed theist shouldn’t be running from your [twisted] logic. He should be running to it.
And to the extent we would work that out, we would be witnessing to each other. That suggests you have a high moral certainty to your atheism.
IOW, the evidence----to you---- for the existence of God is no more compelling that that of the Loch Ness monster.
You are simply witnessing to me/us.
Czarcasm
Please afford me the intellectual courage to answer in one word each the following 3 questions:
-
Is there a God?
(yes or no) -
Can you prove it?
(yes or no) -
Do you consider yourself an atheist?
(yes or no)
Czarcasm
Who’s on first?
That’s not “intellectual courage”; that’s being baited into using a one word answer with no defense or support. Somehow I doubt you’d feel confined to a one word reply.
As was the problem with the other thread this is just becoming a debate about metaphysics which is not what I intended.
If you consider yourself an agnostic that’s fine an I would expect the prompt to apply to you just as well as atheists. I don’t want to debate about why one philosophy is better than the other though. We can have a whole nother thread about that.
Maybe most atheists and agnostics have not had a lot of problems from their families, school, work and communities. I sort of doubt it from my own experiences but I’m willing to listen to people if that’s been their experience.
You know, you’re right.
I’m sorry for hijacking your thread. I’ll bow out.
Thread hijacked to this thread
I can think of maybe three Dopers off the top of my head who have ever publicly stated their belief in a specific deity.
I disagree. Agnostics very correctly state that no one knows if a god of any kind exists. Theists and atheists both state definitely that one exists or does not exist, but they do so without proof of any kind.
I’m agnostic. I can truthfully state that any religion started by humans is a lie; a simple study of history shows that to be true. I cannot truthfully state that a god of some sort does or does not exist, because I can’t prove it either way.
Bullshit. This sounds much like the whole, “atheists, when you get right down to it, are just a bunch of people who are pissed off at god.”
Stop telling other people what they believe or don’t believe.
IME of being agnostic (or atheist or whatever) in NZ since the late 70s (with the exception of being a Buddhist… for about 4 hours in 1981… I was hoping the incense would make me cooler), it’s just been no big deal. It has meant some very interesting conversations with theists (including some co-workers and my father-in-law), but none of the sort of issues and problems that US dopers have recounted. (Or at least none where I haven’t been the cause – if you engage street preachers or door-to-door JWs in conversation you should know what you’re getting into). 
And it isn’t just that religion is a taboo subject (neither is politics), so it’s not that we just don’t discuss religion. (At least IME – for other Kiwis YMMV of course), but then about 1/3rd of this country actively self-describe as having no religion (based on census results) and while just over half the country* do claim some religion active attendance at churches is estimated at around only 15%.
*(yes, 1/3 and 1/2 don’t add up: the total of “no religion”, “no answer” and answers that cannot be categorised came to 48% in 2006. The 1/3rd is just the actual “no religion” answer).
Our current Prime Minister and his predecessor are both agnostic (or similar)… being known not to be religious isn’t a political impediment. And nor is being privately religious. I can however imagine that being a *pushy *atheist would be, but then so would being pushily religious; being as publicly religious as many US politicians are would only be the norm here for members of fringe religious parties (who are generally seen as weirdoes).
Religion really is one of those areas where when US dopers talk about their experiences I’m reminded that the differences between our cultures is more than just you driving on the wrong side of the road.